|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-04-12 | | solskytz: On the one hand, I'm pretty positive that 18...Qxa3 isn't some deep kind of home preparation... on the other, this Gawain guy sure knows how to put the pressure! Four minors swimming inside White's game with a trappable queen isn't something to scoff at. He keeps it for over ten moves, with many variations which need calculating... Just as an example, Magnus could have plausibly retreated his Q to e1 on move 28, just to have her beautifully trapped by the same black move as in the game, costing him the exchange. |
|
| Dec-04-12 | | solskytz: This queen maneouver, Queen f2 and then to g1, must have driven Gawain to despair, as he exchanges his first minor piece right thereafter and the energy of his play drops considerably, as if he says, you are right Magnus... It's probably on a par with another pretty Queen maneouver he played rather recently against Anand (and someone else will reference the exact game, I'm positive) |
|
Dec-04-12
 | | HeMateMe: two pieces for a queen? Gwain didn't seem to have any threats. |
|
| Dec-04-12 | | Ezzy: <solskytz: On the one hand, I'm pretty positive that 18...Qxa3 isn't some deep kind of home preparation...> Difficult to believe, BUT it could be part of home prep!! Wow. I just found a game in the Chessbase database with the 18...Qxa3 queen sacrifice. Well well well, Not original after all. Axel Rombaldini (2309) v Francesco Sorcinelli (2116) Bergamo 2009 ....And black won!
http://www.chesslive.de/ |
|
| Dec-04-12 | | Steve.Patzer: I must be missing something. Why doesn't 16....axb3 work? |
|
| Dec-04-12 | | Kinghunt: <Steve.Patzer> 17. Bxc5 and the d pawn can't recapture because of the pin against the queen. Black has a lot of compensation for the piece with the a/b pawn, but could certainly do better with the text. |
|
| Dec-04-12 | | Alesavio: Alex Rombaldoni. |
|
| Dec-04-12 | | vinidivici: I dont know gawain jones tried to be something or what. But sacrificed a queen for just 2 minor pieces let alone in the opening against the best player in the world is a stupid. plain and simple. |
|
| Dec-05-12 | | Hesam7: I don't think the Queen sacrifice is wong. It might not be the best move in that position objectively but it certainly is not a losing move. The mistake(s) came later, the first one is <20...Bd4?>. Instead 20...Ra2! is much better:
click for larger viewWhite has to be careful here, the best my engine can come up with is White giving away a pawn: 21 b4 Bd4 22 Qg3 Nb4 23 Nb3 Nb3 24 Qb3 Bc5 
click for larger viewThe weakness of the f2-pawn is a real annoyance, then add the more active Rook on a2 and the bishop pair and Black may have some real compensation for the material deficit (NBP v. Q). White should be better but his advantage is not that large. |
|
| Dec-05-12 | | WiseWizard: Interesting for the first time in this tournament Carlsen plays many sub-optimal moves according to houdini. Why aren't people attacking him in unbalanced irrational positions more often? Its the only time he plays weak moves. There must be a way. Funny, Anand might be the only one who can play this style accurately enough to beat Magnus in a match as I refuse to believe Anand has weakened and think he's playing possum. |
|
| Dec-05-12 | | Atking: <Hesam7> Good analysis. I was thinking to Ra2 myself but at move 31. At move 20 it is even stronger. I feel strange that Carlsen is leading after being in difficulty in 3 games on 4! No doubt the guy is very strong. Indeed he has enought self-confidence to defend proudly difficult position. |
|
| Dec-05-12 | | Atking: <Hesam7> In your last diag Rfa8-Ra3 looks also very embarassing for White (obviously Bc2 is another threat but Black might go for more than that). |
|
| Dec-05-12 | | pawn to QB4: < Interesting for the first time in this tournament Carlsen plays many sub-optimal moves according to houdini. Why aren't people attacking him in unbalanced irrational positions more often? Its the only time he plays weak moves. > that is a very interesting thought. Might be similar to thoughts Soviet GMs had when trying to play Fischer - unbalanced irrational positions might be a relative weakness. I'd only say that, personally, I have a few opponents I'd really like to invite into such positions, but these people tend to have opening repertoires that make wild games hard to insist upon. I imagine that is true at the higher levels also. |
|
| Dec-05-12 | | WiseWizard: Yes, especially since Carlsen plays unforced opening lines, still there must be a way, hire Ivanchuk/Morozevich to cook up something illogical and iron it out with an engine. If Kramnik could make the Berlin strong enough to neutralize Kasparov this is definitely possible. Funny just compared Carlsen's openings to Kasparov's, two different sides of the coin both just as tough to beat, very Lao Tzu, check out that book children. |
|
Dec-05-12
 | | OBIT: For the guys who think Jones was crazy to try a speculative sacrifice against the World's #1: It's true Jones was playing a much higher rated player, but IMO that only makes it easier to try something adventurous. He was playing someone he should expect to score only 25% against anyway, so if he thought the sac had a better than 25% chance of working, it was okay to try it. Even factoring in the likelihood that Carlsen would defend better than someone around Jones' rating, I think his sac is easier to play against Carlsen than another 2600 player. And, if he was playing someone 200 lower, then, yeh, the queen sac WOULD have been crazy. |
|
| Dec-05-12 | | Ulhumbrus: The speculative sacrifice 18..Qxa3 may indeed be called a mad idea if the alternative 18..Rf6!! leads to a won game. This move is hardly obvious as it obtructs temporarily Black's king's bishop. |
|
| Dec-05-12 | | Kinghunt: How does 18...Rf6 lead to a won game? 19. Bxc5 and white still looks better to me. |
|
Dec-05-12
 | | perfidious: < vinidivici: I dont know gawain jones tried to be something or what.
But sacrificed a queen for just 2 minor pieces let alone in the opening against the best player in the world is a stupid. plain and simple.> Maybe you should ask your 2400+ teacher about that, assuming he exists; he might have a different point of view than simply calling the idea 'a stupid' without providing any supporting analysis. |
|
Dec-05-12
 | | maxi: I remember when I was an active player I came to realize that this type of sacrifices, which have little tactical or strategical basis but result in granting the initiative for a few moves, usually were victorious only when the opponent was either tired, uptight or short of time. I did not play them unless at least one of the above conditions was a given. In this case I remember that Jones had far less time in his clock when he decided upon his sacrifice... a good reason not to do it. |
|
Dec-05-12
| | OBIT: <maxi> Oh, this sacrifice seems to have plenty of strategic basis, that being good diagonals for both bishops, nicely posted knights, and one active rook with the second ready to jump in, while White's pieces look passive and his queenside pawns suspect. I realize when the average club player looks at this sacrifice he concludes "it loses three points", but I'll bet the GMs in the audience were fascinated, trying to figure out if Black's active pieces compensated for the material deficit. |
|
Dec-06-12
| | maxi: You may be right, <OBIT>, I have not really taken a careful look at the game. That day I had a lot to do. Perhaps tomorrow I'll have an opportunity. But it is a fact that Jones had quite a lot less time in his clock, so perhaps it simply was not good policy. On the other hand I cannot agree at all with people that bring up the subject of Carlsen´s strength in the abstract. Oh, he is so strong, blah, blah, best player, blah, blah. If you think like that you are never going to be any good. Why try anything against such a player. Better then to be like Fischer and call a patzer anybody that has not been a world champ. I mean, if you are going to go to extremes. |
|
| Dec-06-12 | | dehanne: Nezhmetdinov is rolling in his grave. |
|
| Dec-06-12 | | Shams: <Kinghunt><How does 18...Rf6 lead to a won game? 19. Bxc5 and white still looks better to me.> He certainly doesn't use the word "winning", but Andrew Martin does prefer 18...Rf6 as a way to set White more problems than the text. (He also spends time on <Hesam7>'s superior 20...Ra2). 18...Rf6 commentary is around the 11:45 mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDLJ... |
|
Dec-06-12
 | | kingscrusher: I have video annotated this game here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWnk... |
|
Dec-06-12
| | maxi: Your comment is funny, <dehanne>, but if you a are a fan of the Man you must know that His sacrifices usually had very clear tactical justifications. Most of the time the enemy King was left in an embarrassing, awkward situation from which it had the most difficult time trying to extricate itself. They were high end attacks. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
